Bit Parts
April 28, 2006
Collective Bargaining Agreements/Waiver of Judicial Forum<br>Concert Injuries/Negligence<br>Copyright Transfer/Writing Requirement<br>Television-Programming Dispute/Judicial Forum<br>BOOK RELEASE: 'Music, Money and Success,' 5th Edition by Jeffrey Brabec and Todd Brabec<br>Upcoming Event: The Third Pacific Northwest Arts and Entertainment Symposium
Courthouse Steps
April 28, 2006
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Counsel Concerns
April 28, 2006
Malpractice/Venue Transfer<br>Rule 11 Sanctions<br> Rule 11 Substantive Requirements
Clause & Effect <b>Film-Option Agreements/Theatrical Release.
April 28, 2006
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a film-option agreement required a film to be released initially in theaters. LaHaye v. Goodneuz Group LLC, 04-55839. Rev. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the Christian-book series 'Left Behind,' had filed suit against a production company over a film based on one of the books. The appeals court first found in its unpublished opinion that there…
Cameo Clips
April 28, 2006
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Is 'No Use' Always a 'Fair Use'?
April 28, 2006
In order to avoid liability for trademark infringement relating to the sale of keywords corresponding to trademarks, search engines, including Google, are attacking the concept that trademark owners should be able to protect the 'commercial magnetism' of their marks. Recently, in <i>Rescue.com v. Google, Inc.</i>, No. 5:04-CV-1056 (N.D.N.Y.), Google argued that the trademark laws 'are not meant to protect consumer good will [sic] created through extensive, skillful, and costly advertising.' Google's Reply Brief at 4 n.4 (2005) (citing <i>Smith v. Chanel, Inc.</i>, 402 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1968)).
CA High Court Sides With 'Friends' Writers
April 28, 2006
Script writers for both television sitcoms and dramas have been given the license to be as raunchy as they like during the creative process ' as long as their raw talk doesn't single out specific people as the butt of the jokes. In a case that put the entertainment and publishing industries on edge ' and had some Hollywood honchos speaking out ' the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that sexually coarse and vulgar language is often a necessary part of the creative process when producing a hit TV show. <i>Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions</i>.
'Da Vinci Code' Case Stretched Legal Thinking On What Can Be Protected By Copyright
April 28, 2006
The common wisdom before, and during, the London copyright infringement trial over Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code' (DVC) was that the plaintiffs Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh would lose because an idea cannot be copyrighted. And the plaintiffs did lose. <i>Baigent v. Random House Group</i>. Some even suggested the plaintiffs sued only to bolster the sale of their own book, 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail', which is what happened ' though High Court Justice Peter Smith ordered the plaintiffs to pay $1.75 million in legal costs. The number of additional copies the authors will have to sell to earn enough royalties to pay that amount is high. Still, the case was one of those signal attempts to reconsider exactly what authorship is for copyright law purposes.
Speak No Evil
April 27, 2006
An age-old question of Internet law has heated up the intrastate rivalry between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but this time it's not sports teams or gubernatorial candidates; it's judges. Yes, judges.<br>The question: When can an anonymous Internet speaker accused of defamation be unmasked? The combatants: Judge Albert Sheppard of Phila-delphia and Judge R. Stanton Wettick of Pittsburgh ' two of Pennsylvania's most respected jurists. If Pennsylvania can be split on the issue, so can other states. Which argument is correct?
Wikipedia Creates Concerns Aplenty About the Web's Reliability
April 27, 2006
Although the online encyclopedia Wikipedia recently added its 1 millionth English-language article, controversy over the value of its content continues. Concerns arise because Wikipedia has no single editor, and anyone (or virtually anyone) can add a new entry or edit an existing one. <br>Reliability concerns are in no way limited to Wikipedia, but pervade legal research done on the Internet.
